Messages

Not sure if there are mods or not but as a suggestion thread I do like the idea of colonists being a little more aware of friendly fire. I wouldn't want it eliminated but if they could be more cautious that would be awesome.

It's been discussed to death and I don't believe there are any new ideas here except for children seeking revenge for the death of their parents, which could actually be added into the game as is. I think THAT is a good idea.

As for children in rimworld, many people are against it for good reason, and it basically boils down to controversy and difficulty to inpliment in a meaningful way. The game doesn't last long enough for realistic children growth, but if they aren't kids for very long why bother having kids at all if they're just going to be adults after one season. It's a no-win situation.

I don't like the execution but I like the idea of designating groups of similar animals as a herd in order to consolidate their game logic into a single group of actions rather than an army of individual chickens who all need to regularly ping the game for whatever it is they need. It's particularly difficult to run a farm and yet it's essential for survival in the late game because you simply MUST diversify your food sources across multiple types and sources to prevent yourself from being screwed over by bad weather events and blight.

I just think a single animal solution is somewhat clunky, particularly because I like seeing all my animals but also because animals still need to he protected and if you lump them into a single animal it makes it very easy to protect one. Perhaps herded animals still exist seperately but their herd status enables them to move less frequently, rather than having an army of animals moving constantly, your herd would move infrequently and prefer to relax in place, moving one at a time over small distances at rare intervals.

The lag mostly is coming from the constant animal pathfinding, so if this can be mitigated it solves most lag issues relating to animals.

YES. If anything fog of war should be required for raiding.

This also opens up the possibility of colonists vision distance being directly impacted by their eyesight and whether or not they have a bionic eye, colonists with damaged eyesight would obviously have reduced vision based on an arbitrary tile distance, however bionic eyes could not only improve that distance but perhaps the enhancements would eliminate the need for spotters. Or maybe spotters with bionic eyes would provide huge bonuses

I love it. I probably wouldn't use it but it's a great idea

There are many balancing issues associated with this, and the game is already well designed to keep them seperate. I don't feel that merging them together makes any sense. You're supposed to have melee fighters to combat melee fighters. The two styles of combat have different specialties which is why they have different skills to begin with. It also sounds clumsy to have colonists carrying around heavy guns and big unweildy swords at all times. And without training them, most colonists will be useless with the swords anyway.

And further this idea doesn't actually solve the problem you mentioned, it does the opposite in fact it just sends you the same problem over and over. You say people complain about melee suicide rushes and your solution is that raiders should shoot at you for a while and then melee suicide rush? Huh? All this will do is enable perfectly safe and deadly raiders to occasionally remove themselves from cover and blindly charge you, putting themselves in serious danger.

I agree that melee raiders AI is currently foolish and needs improvement, but this suggestion is actively counter productive. You're just dragging all the other raiders down, and doing nothing to improve melee combat.

I agree, and from a small annoyance srandpoint I also feel structures should not spawn there either because I personally like to deconstruct all structures and remove their floors to reuse the stone elsewhere, and I hate having to leave a half complete job unfinished.

Hey mike, suggestion:
If you post just to oppose a suggestion, quit the suggestions forum. It's borderline trollish I think and disrespectful.
That's my opinion at least.

No, it isn't trollish. The purpose of the Suggestions forum is to post suggestions and gauge community reaction to it. If negative feedback is driven out, then every suggestion would be favorably skewed, no matter how ludicrous, niche, or bad it is. I reserve the right to oppose suggestions and say "I don't think that works with RimWorld", especially when people are suggesting bolting a 2nd game onto RimWorld to make it work.

I completely agree. Every suggestion is subject to peer review, even good suggwations have bad elements, and some bad suggestions have small nuggets of great ideas. If they weren't up for discussion then it would be a suggestion box, not a suggestion forum. 

I fully disagree and feel you're missing the point. It's never been an argument of whether or not beer contains water, of course it does. The issue is a lack of anti-diuretic hormone in the body when drunk that makes the body retain far less water, and is literally the basis of all hangovers. You can get drunk on beer and piss like a racehorse and you'll still feel it the next morning if you aren't drinking plenty of water during and after being drunk, because whether it's 95% water or not, your body isn't retaining any of it.

If you drink one maybe two beers, sure, you'll get a little hydrated. But in Rimworld it simply isn't meant to be consumed for hydration, and the current colonist AI won't support it. Once they start drinking, they drink until they're drunk, regardless of restrictions set in the drug policy window. That's why alcohol tolerance is such a pain in Rimworld, even "one drink a day" eventually devolves into 3-4 drinks because their tolerance is too high, and they're trying to get drunk. By exposing the colonists to more chances to consume alcohol, you increase the likelihood that you'll get a bad roll and the colonist will wind up with an addiction.

It's a bad idea. It's bad for gameplay, it doesn't make sense with the current way the game is designed, the current way beer is made, the current way colonists handle alcohol. If it's added that's not the issue, the issue is everything else surrounding beer needs to change or you're going to wind up wirh a colony of alcoholics because they're all going to drink Beer for theyr hydration meter. Work will also slow down because they'll be drunk or hungover all the time.

Expand upon current AI to facilitate this PROPERLY or don't do it at all and stick to water. Even then, it will make beer more involved to produce and if it's too difficult to make with little upside and too many downsides people will simply stop trying altogether and at that point why bother including it at all if it's made useless? It's a no win situation.

My goal isn't to be negative but you can't make a suggestion in a vaccuum, proper consideration has to he given to all relevant aspects of gameplay that are affected by a suggestion, and beer as hydration source has too many impacts to blindly say yes to. It would require would require entire reworks in several major areas of the game. Beer as a hydration source would affect colonist AI, drug dependancy, drunkenness, hydration, the production of beer itself would need to be harder, and economic factors would also change as beer would become harder to produce AND more valuable for survival so it would need to cost more.

It's an extra headache on top of a system that doesn't even exist yet. Stick to the basics first

Except beer's primary function in Rimworld is to get drunk, colonists drink to get hammered, which means colonists will drink themselves into dehydration. Even "one beer a day" doesn't stop colonists with high tolerance from drinking several beers until theyre hammered.

Let's just stick with actual water.

...yes, no roof spots, and their adjacent thin roof spots inside of mountains exist. They're supposed to be discovered, which is why a a semi-recent minor update fixed the bug where rain would reveal these areas. Having them shown with different colors or graphics before they're discovered would defeat the whole point.

The point of this discussion is to easily discern which tiles have overhead mountain, and which do not, but BlackSmokeDMax pointed out that you wouldn't want this system to reveal hidden areas within the mountains, so I suggested that such areas would have the same "overhead mountain" indicator as the tiles around them until they were discovered.

I guess I fail to see the point of leaving them undiscovered because it seems obvious to me that they should and would be visible. Not every area within a mountain with a thin/no roof is an open area, I'm doing a test at this very moment and I have uncovered more thin/no roof areas that are full of rock than I have that are empty caverns. So to my mind revealing this information affects very little and isn't worth hiding from the player.

Maybe I'm just missing the point, but I still stand by my opinion that overhead mountains and rock roofs should at all times look visually different. The player still has no indication as to whether or not the thin/no roof area is empty or not, so they still have to do the leg work either way.

I have mined out PLENTY of tiles that had thin roof or no roof in the interior of a mountain so I don't know what you are talking about.

Well, the fog of war already exists; It obscures everything not yet discovered by the colonists. If you have some sort of graphical way to denote overhead mountain, it will reveal undiscovered areas within the mountains because they won't have that graphic applied. The only solution is to apply the overhead mountain graphic to undiscovered areas as well, and then have it go away once they become discovered.

Not if undiscovered non mountain areas have the standard rock roofs and behave as they currently do, those would still be a mystery as to whether or not they were open or simply thin roofed.

I don't know where the confusion is coming from, maybe I'm just not being clear enough. It's possible that my wording is not conveying what is in my head so I will try and visualize it and post what I mean

A soldier trained in this kind of combat sims should think that he can run in the middle of the battlefield without any problem.
I remember how well the Rimworld fighter shoot.

I play all my games in a big one-room wood base with some mortar in the center ready to explode the siege from afar so I don't see the roof problem.

I want also remind that if you manage to let the colonists remove or change the rock roof, you enable and easy way to prevent infestation.

Rock roof maybe, but most mountain bases contain a vast amount of "overhead mountain" roof which cannot be removed...so...